Payloader photos on Flickr

1:72 Messerschmitt Me 262 F-2b (P.1099) “Pulkzerstörer”, early production; “Gelbe 4” of III./JG 53 "Pik As" (Ace of Spades), Deutsche Luftwaffe; Kassel, April 1946 (What-if/modified Revell kit) by Dizzyfugu

1

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based on historical facts. BEWARE!

Some background:

The Messerschmitt Me 262 F was a series of multi-purpose jet planes designed by Messerschmitt for the Luftwaffe that entered service during the final phase of the Second World War in Europe. The aircraft’s design was begun in the summer of 1943 under the project handle P.1099, intended as an improvement to the successful Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter and also as a replacement for the Arado Ar 234 bomber/reconnaissance aircraft. The primary focus was on more payload, being either usable for more fuel (since early jet engines had poor mileage and therefore range and endurance) or for weapons, including bombs in an internal bomb bay that would enable the aircraft to fulfil a similar tactical role as the British de Havilland Mosquito. Beyond this high-speed bomber (Schnellbomber) variant, the P.1099 would also be a suitable basis for a fast reconnaissance plane, interceptors and night fighters, and trainer versions were also planned.

The Messerschmitt P.1099 was a 12 m long, conventional-looking aircraft with a wingspan of 12.6 m. It had a much wider fuselage than the Messerschmitt Me 262. It had a circular shape with a diameter of 1.7m (5 ft 6¾ in) and the cockpit was now moved closer to the aircraft’s nose, above the front landing gear well. The baseline aircraft featured a side-by-side cockpit for a crew of two, even though different layouts were envisioned for the specialized variants, including single-seaters. To save development time and to use existing jigs and tools as much as possible, the P.1099 retained the wings and the tail section of the Me 262A-2a. Despite a higher total weight (the P.1099’ MTOW was about 3 tons higher), the planned powerplants were initially two uprated Junkers Jumo 004 turbojet engines, later to be replaced by more powerful Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets.

In January 1944 the P.1099 was accepted by the RLM and received, despite the aircraft’s different structure, the designation “Me 262 F”. The first variant, the Me 262 F-1 (internally designated P.1099A), was the baseline aircraft under the handle “Jäger I”, a jet-powered single seat daytime fighter. There were three planned versions, differing mainly in armament: Version F-1a was armed with four MK 108 30 mm cannon in the lower fuselage, comparable with the earlier Me 262 A fighter, just with more fuel and ammunition. Version F-1b carried two MK 103 30 mm cannon with longer range, firepower and ammunition supply, and Version F-1c was a heavy daytime fighter with two MK 108 and two MK 103 cannon in the nose.
In parallel the Me 262 F-2 was developed as a more heavily armed and armored variant, as a dedicated heavy bomber interceptor (“Pulkjäger” or “Zerstörer”) under the handle “Jäger II”. Again, three versions were foreseen: Version F-2a would be armed with a single MK 108 cannon and a heavy MK 112 55 mm cannon in the nose. Version F-2b was the same, but it was armed with a MK 114 50 mm cannon instead of the Mk 112. Both were single seaters with a heavily armored cockpit and canopy.
The F-2c was a more thoroughly modified two-seater version; it was armed with a single MG151/20 in a small nose turret, a pair of Mk 103 in the rear of the cockpit firing up- and backwards and two defensive MG 131 in remote-controlled FDL 151 barbettes in the tail. Due to the significant changes this model had the internal project designation P.1099B.
Another two-seater, the F-2d, remained very close to the original baseline aircraft with a crew of two in a side-by-side cockpit. This aircraft was armed with the standard four MK 108 in the nose, plus one launch rail under each wing for Ruhrstahl X-4 guided missiles, which were launched and steered by the second crewman via a wire connection with the mothership. This variant did not come to fruition, however, after the X-4 missile project had been cancelled in early 1945.

All P.1099 fighters also had hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles each, a detail taken over from the Me 262 A, even though the fuel load had to be reduced to carry them. The radio equipment of all these versions would be a FuG 16, Peil G6, FuG 101 radio altimeter, FuBl 2 blind landing equipment, as well as the FuG 25a Erstling identification friend or foe transceiver.

Beyond these initial day fighter variants, further types based on the P.1099 airframe were envisioned, too. The F-3 was a dedicated night fighter version, developed in parallel to the Me 262 G. It was based on the F-2a heavy day fighter, but it carried a crew of two (the pilot and a rearward-facing radar operator) and was equipped with a FuG 240 “Berlin” radar set and a rotating dish antenna under a streamlined plywood cover in the nose. The armament consisted of four MK 108 under the nose, similar to the F-1a day fighter, plus two additional, upward-firing MK 108 cannon (“Schräge Musik”) in the rear fuselage.
Other proposed variants (with less priority, though) were the F-4 and the F-5, which were to become the basis for fast bombers and reconnaissance aircraft with only light defensive armament, typically only a pair of MG 131 in remote-controlled tail barbettes was to be carried. The F-4 resembled the baseline P.1099A, with two bomb bays in front of and behind the main landing gear wells and a crew of two seated side-by-side in a pressurized cockpit. Two MK 108 were carried in the nose, plus the MG 131 tail barbettes. The F-5 was similar but featured a glazed bomb aimer/navigator station in the nose instead of the MK 108’s and the glazing above the pilot’s station was reduced and asymmetrical. In both bomber variants the fuselage tanks were re-arranged to make room for a single SC 1.200 in the front bomb bay, but combinations of smaller bombs could be carried, too. Alternatively, mounts for up to three cameras or a 1.350 l auxiliary tank for extended range could be carried in the bays, too.

Initial flight tests of the Me 262 F in late 1944 showed severe directional instability: especially after fuel and ammunition had been depleted and the center of gravity shifted the aircraft tended to become nose-heavy and ditch down if it was not carefully monitored and trimmed by the pilot. To cope with this problem, the engine mounts were modified, so that the CoG was shifted back. Compared with the original Me 262 the engines were placed roughly 900 mm (35.5 in) further back under the wings. The emptying sequence of the fuselage tanks was also changed, and this mostly mended the problems. Another measure to mend the directional instability issues was the enlargement of the tail surfaces, even though later production aircraft frequently had smaller Me 262 A stabilizers fitted due to material shortages and simple lack of parts.- However, due to the higher weight the Me 262 F’s handling and agility were very limited – but most of its intended roles rather relied on speed, anyway, so that dogfights could be avoided.

From 1944 on the war situation worsened considerably, and production of the new Me 262 F superseded the A variant only on selected production lines. A disused mine complex under the Walpersberg mountain was adapted for the production of complete aircraft. These were hauled to the flat top of the hill where a runway had been cleared and flown out. Between 20 and 30 Me 262 Fs were built here until early 1946, primarily fighters, the underground factory being overrun by Allied troops before it could reach a meaningful output. Wings were produced in Germany's oldest motorway tunnel at Engelberg, to the west of Stuttgart. At B8 Bergkristall-Esche II, a vast network of tunnels was excavated beneath St. Georgen/Gusen, Austria, where fully equipped fuselages for the Me 262 at a planned monthly rate of 450 units on large assembly lines were to be produced from early 1945.

After the type’s introduction to frontline units in early 1945 further handling problems arose through the aircraft’ weight, resulting from its high wing load. Both starting and landing run were excessive, so that the number of airfields from which it could be operated was relatively small. No real short-term solution could be found without fully re-designing the wings, so that RATO bottles were frequently used to get a fully loaded Me 262 F up into the air from standard airfields. These were typically fitted to racks which were mounted under the fuselage, flanking the rear bomb bay.
The Me 262 F’s landing speed was dangerously high, too. A retrofittable brake parachute, housed in a simple tubular fairing under the tail, was developed to reduce the landing distance and save brakes, which frequently overheated and could set the landed aircraft aflame.

From the Me 262 F-2a “Pulkzerstörer I”, only a small number were built and eventually entered service. Its main armament, the MK 112, was a heavy German machine cannon produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig from 1945 on – in fact, the MK 112 was basically a scaled-up MK 108, a very compact weapon with relatively low weight. The MK 112 had a caliber of 55 mm and thus fired much larger shells than the 30 mm MK 108, but the rate of fire was significantly lower (300 rounds / min compared to about 600-660 rounds / min of the MK 108). This large-caliber gun was designed primarily to combat heavy bombers, its rate of fire would have been too slow for effective aerial battles with escort fighters – but the Me 262 F would not have been a dogfighter, anyway, so that the “hit-and-run” mission profile suited the aircraft well. Fire tests showed that a single MK 112 hit with mine grenades could destroy a bomber, and with a rate of fire of five shells per second this weapon could inflict considerably higher losses on the incoming streams of Allied bombers compared to other on-board weapons used on the German side. Only the unguided R4M missiles were as effective, but the MK 112 offered considerably higher accuracy and the opportunity to execute more than just a single attack run on an incoming bomber formation.
The MK 112 was mounted in the lower starboard section of the Me 262 F-2a’s nose, its barrel protruded more than 2 m (7 ft) from its nose. The gun’s drum magazine with sixty rounds partly took up the rear space of the cockpit behind the pilot and the gun mount even used up space of the weapon bay on port side, so that only a single MK 108 with 100 rounds as an additional weapon was mounted in the lower port side weapon bay.
Its sister, the Me 262 F-2b, remained on the drawing board, because its main weapon, the 50 mm MK 114 autocannon that had been derived from the 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, had turned out to be over-complicated, overweight and unreliable. A refined version was developed as the MK 214A, though, but after flight test from February 1945, but the weapon was not deployed operationally.

Only a handful Me 262 F-2a Pulkzerstörer were eventually fielded and operated before the end of hostilities – beyond the low production numbers the lack of fuel and loss of suitable airfields highly limited the aircraft’s potential. Probably less than ten were used by operational units, including JG 53 “Pik As”, in which they served alongside other interceptors, including other Me 262 variants. Typically, bomber formations were approached from the side of a bomber formation, where their silhouettes were widest, and while still out of range of the bombers' machine guns. This broadside-attack tactic was very effective, and the aircraft’s high speed allowed the interceptors to turn around 180° and make at least a second attack run from the opposite side, before the machines dashed off and returned to their bases.

General characteristics

Crew: One

Length: 14,32 m (46 ft 11 in) overall

12,00 m (39 ft 3¾ in) fuselage only, w/o brake parachute housing

Wingspan: 12,61 m (41 ft 3¾ in)

Height: 4,43 m (14 ft 6 in)

Wing area: 24,2 m² (236 sq ft)

Empty weight: 5.061 kg (11,148 lb)

Loaded weight: 8.762 kg (19,300 lb)

Max. take-off weight: 10.062 kg (22,163 lb)

Powerplant:

2× Junkers Jumo 004 C turbojets with 12 kN (2,697 lb st) each

Performance

Maximum speed: 930 km/h (577 mph, 505 kn)

Cruising speed: 805 km/h (500 mph, 438 kn) at 6.500 m (21,290 ft)

Range: 1.340 km (830 ml, 728 nm) at 6000 m with internal fuel only

Service ceiling: 11,450 m (37,570 ft)

Rate of climb: 18 m/s (3,540 ft/min) at max. weight

Armament:

1× 55 mm (1.96 in) MK 112 machine cannon with 60 rounds

1× 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 108 machine cannon with 100 rounds

Hardpoints under the outer wings for racks with twelve 55mm R4M unguided air-to-air missiles

The kit and its assembly:

This became a submission to the late 2021 “Gunships” group build at whatifmodellers.com – what would such a competition be without at least one gun-toting German Luft ’46 interceptor? The Messerschmitt P.1099 lent itself for such a build. Since 1996 Revell offers a 1:72 IP model kit of this paper aircraft, depicting more or less the two planned versions: a basic single-seat day fighter and a heavy two-seater Zerstörer, both based on the same basis.

This what-if model was based on Revell’s interpretation of the P.1099A, and the kit goes together well. Fit is very good, even though some designs are IMHO a bit dubious. The kit’s weakest point: Revell unfortunately missed the important detail of the modified engine nacelles: the kit comes with standard Me 262 wings and engines, but due to CoG reasons the P.1099 would have had its engines moved back by about 900 mm, as mentioned in the background. I corrected this on this build with some PSR – sounds simple, but since the nacelles are not expected to be stuck to the wings in their new position roughly 1 cm further back, some serious bodywork had to be done.

Otherwise the kit was basically built OOB. I just left away the inner wheels from the main landing gear because I found the twin wheels to be “too much” for this upgraded Me 262. The P.1099 might have been heavier than the Me 262, but…? And the wheels’ tractor-like tread design looks IMHO out of place, too, so that I replaced them with a pair of MiG-21 wheels, left over from a KP kit.

The cockpit was taken OOB, even though I have doubts concerning the canopy. And when you look at mockup pictures of the P.1099 you realize that cockpit access had been facilitated through a side door at starboard, similar to the D. H. Mosquito. The cockpit tub does not consider this hatch at all, and the engraved door on the fuselage (it’s actually there!) is so tiny that only a Halfling might use it?

Well, I stuck with it “as is” and just added a pilot figure (specifically from a Matchbox Hawker tempest, because it is one of the rare cases that you get a WWII pilot wearing an oxygen mask) and a “barrel” behind the bulbous pilot seat because there’s a lot of free space in this single seat variant that is otherwise occupied by a rear gunner in Revell’s P.1099B kit. I also have doubts concerning the kit’s canopy, since the original P.1099 had a cockpit for two seated side-by-side, with a canopy that resembled the D.H. Mosquito’s a lot. I am also not certain about the stabilizers – the kit comes with standard Me 262 parts, but trustworthy sources I consulted suggest that not only the fin had been enlarged (depicted well in Revell’s kit), but also the stabilizers? To improve this, I implanted a pair of modified stabilizers that came from a Heller PZL P.23 light bomber. Sounds odd, but they were a very good match in size, shape and thickness!

The only major modification concerns the armament, even though it became just a “graft-on” solution. On the lower left side, the upper gun port was PSRed away. On the right side I added a bulged fairing for the MK 112. It was sculpted from a Matchbox Saab J29 drop tank and blended into the hull with PSR. Protruding spent cases fairings were added for both guns. The MK 112 gun barrel is a resin piece, left over from a ModelTrans tank conversion set and actually depicts a German 55 mm gun, so that this became a perfect donor piece.

Since the airframe still looked rather clean and boring I finally added a pair of JATO bottle racks to the rear fuselage (scratched from styrene profile but left empty) and a brake parachute fairing under the fin, carved from a piece of sprue.

Furthermore, a display adapter was installed into the fuselage for in-flight pictures.

Painting and markings:

This became a challenge, because I wanted a rather unusual livery, neither a standard RLM 81/82/76 late-war combo nor an improvised-cammo-over-bare-metal finish. After some research I settled upon something that was actually carried by some He 177 bombers around 1944: a uniform RLM 74 (Graugrün, Humbrol 245) upper surface with “cloudy” mottles in RLM 76 (Humbrol 247). This appears like a winter camouflage, but it’s actually quite effective at medium altitude, esp. over a cloudy landscape. The original bombers had light blue (RLM 65) undersides, but for the P.1099 from a later period and as a fighter I rather used a darker shade of RLM76 in the form of Tamiya XF-23 (Light Blue). The model received a black ink washing and some post-panel-shading.

The cockpit interior became RLM 66 (Schwarzgrau, Humbrol 67) while the landing gear and the well were painted in uniform RLM 02 (I used Revell 45, a slightly more greenish tone), with wheel discs in RLM 66, too.

Unit markings became minimal and quite sober. I gave the aircraft a typical late-war “Reichsverteidigung” fuselage band, and in JG 53’s case it is plain black. The black band was deliberately chosen because it is a good, much darker contrast to the murky RLM 74, so that the latter appears lighter than it actually is, lowering the contrast to the RLM 76 spots.

The decals were puzzled together from various sources. As an aircraft of the 3rd group the unit’s ID color would be yellow, reflected in the tactical code and the fin tip. For some contrast and to emphasize the long gun barrel I gave it white and black stripes – as a security measure for ground handling. For some more variety I painted one air intake in very dark grey (Revell 06, Anthracite) and the other one in steel Metallizer, simulating replacement parts. The Balkenkreuze come from various sheets – I used simplified “low viz” versions all around. The undulating yellow bar for the 3rd group comes from a TL Modellbau sheet, while the yellow “4” came from a Fw 190 A sheet from Sky Models. A small “4” on the nose was added as a wacky detail, too, the “Pik As” unit markings came IIRC from a Hobby Boss Bf 109 sheet. Since they turned out to have poor contrast/opacity I only used a few stencils from the P.1099A sheet, but due to the disruptive paint scheme this is not apparent.

Finally, the model was sealed with a coat of matt acrylic varnish (Italeri) and a wire antenna, scratched from heated black sprue material, was added between cockpit and fin.

Well, this modified Messerschmitt P.1099A looks simple, but the modified engine nacelles as well as the gun fairing under the nose called for serious PSR. The result looks quite natural, though, and AFAIK this weapon configuration was actually on German drawing boards. However, I am not certain about the cockpit canopy and other details on Revell’s kit, reference information is contradictive.

The paint scheme looks good, even though it was lent from a heavy bomber, and the poor Humbrol enamels did not yield a finish that I had hoped for – the paintwork could certainly have been better, but the overall impression of a late-war Pulkzerstörer is O.K., and this eventually counts.

Mars 2020 Rover Payload (201407310007HQ) by NASA HQ PHOTO

2

William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for the NASA Human Exploration and Operations Directorate, center, gives remarks during a press briefing where it was announced what instruments will be carried aboard the agency’s Mars 2020 mission, Thursday, July 31, 2014 at NASA Headquarters in Washington. The new rover will carry more sophisticated, upgraded hardware and new instruments to conduct geological assessments of the rover's landing site, determine the potential habitability of the current environment, and directly search for signs of ancient Martian life -- something no previous Mars mission has done. Photo Credit: (NASA/Bill Ingalls)

LTV A-7A Corsair II by Benjamin Donnelly

2

Though the A-4 Skyhawk was by no means outdated by 1962, the US Navy began work on a replacement with better range and heavier payload. The designs submitted would be necessarily heavier than the A-4, but this was not seen as much of a problem, nor was a lack of speed: the Navy was willing to trade subsonic performance for increased range and more bombs. Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) submitted a design based loosely on its successful F-8 Crusader fighter, which was enough to beat out three other designs, and it was ordered into production as the A-7A Corsair II, named for the successful Chance-Vought fighter of World War II.

Though the A-7 was based on the F-8, the two shared very little other than basic configuration: the A-7 was stubby and wide, and definitely subsonic as intended, though it initially used the same powerplant as the F-111 Aardvark. Turn performance was excellent, if acceleration was indifferent, but the centerpiece of the Corsair II was its integrated bomb delivery system. This included the APQ-116 radar, a heads-up display, traveling map display below the radarscope, and a digital computer. Ease of maintenance was also emphasized. With no problems encountered in flight testing, the A-7A entered fleet service in 1967.

It was immediately committed to fighting in Vietnam. Though A-7s would only see action in the tail end of Operation Rolling Thunder, they were to be used extensively in South Vietnam, due to their accuracy: A-7s were capable of putting ordnance within sixty feet of friendly troops, making it well-liked. The Navy liked the USAF's A-7D variant, and subsequently adopted it, with changes for naval operations, as the A-7E. This was to be the definitive model of the Corsair II, and surviving A-7As and A-7Bs were converted to E standard.

It was a mixed batch of A-7 models that finished the war in Vietnam: A-7Bs were mostly used in the suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) Wild Weasel role, and increasingly Corsair IIs were armed with precision weapons such as the AGM-62 Walleye, which proved capable enough to destroy the infamous Thanh Hoa Bridge—albeit temporarily—in 1972. The workhorse A-7 also struck targets in the Hanoi area extensively, making it second only to the B-52 in amount of ordnance dropped on the North Vietnamese capital. Navy A-7s from USS Coral Sea participated in the last combat missions of the Vietnam War, the Mayaguez rescue mission in May 1975. 98 Navy A-7s were shot down during the conflict.

Following the end of the Vietnam War, the A-7 replaced the A-4 in Navy light attack squadrons, standardizing on the A-7E. Aside from minor upgrades, this would remain the type used by Navy units for the duration of the Corsair II’s career. A-7s would go on to participate in every military operation undertaken by the United States in the 1980s—attacks on Lebanon and the invasion of Grenada in 1983, operations against Libya in 1985, during the “Tanker War” in the Persian Gulf in 1987, and finally in the First Gulf War in 1991. In these operations, the A-7 was able to use its pinpoint bombing ability to good use; in Libya and the Persian Gulf, Corsair IIs attacked and sank numerous Libyan and Iranian patrol boats with unguided bombs. It also was the Navy’s Wild Weasel of choice during the 1980s, using the Vietnam-era Shrike before upgrading to the far superior HARM.

In Operation Desert Storm, two A-7 squadrons from John F. Kennedy were used both to attack fixed targets with “iron” bombs and Walleyes in “tank plinking”—knocking out Iraqi tanks with precision weapons. Despite there being less than 30 A-7s in theater, these aircraft were able supplements to the USAF’s A-10s and F-111s.

The First Gulf War was the A-7’s swan song. The last squadrons gave up their Corsair IIs for F/A-18 Hornets by May 1991, ending nearly thirty years of operations. Some ex-Navy A-7s were passed on to Greece, Portugal, and Thailand, and some still remain in service with Thailand and Greece. Of the 1569 A-7s built, about half were Navy types, and today 20 former US Navy A-7s are on display as gate guards and museum pieces.

152681 is one of the oldest A-7s left in the world, and joined the US Navy sometime in the mid-1960s. Its early career is a bit hazy, but it is known to have served with VA-122 ("Flying Eagles") and VA-125 ("Rough Riders") at NAS Lemoore, California; both VA -122 and VA-125 were Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS), more colloquially known as a Replacement Air Group (RAG). The purpose of the FRS/RAG units is to train pilots for combat deployments and provide replacement aircraft for any losses. It is not known if 152681 saw combat during Vietnam.

As the Navy replaced their earlier A-7As with A-7Es, 152681 was relegated to the Naval Reserve in 1976, and finished its career with VA-203 ("Blue Dolphins") at NAS Jacksonville, Florida. It was probably retired around 1983 and became a ground instruction trainer at NATTC Millington, Tennessee until 1991, when it was declared surplus. It was donated to the Prairie Aviation Museum and went on display later that year.

The Prairie Aviation Museum has done a superb job in restoring 152681, and it wears the the green and white rudder stripes of VA-125. The small "S" behind the cockpit is a Safety award. This was during Open Cockpit Day at Prairie, but I got there shortly before the museum closed, so the canopy was already shut on 152681.

As it turns out, this isn't my family's first "experience" with 152681: here is a picture taken during its time with VA-122: www.flickr.com/photos/31469080@N07/51091437323/in/photost...

Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center: Space Shuttle Enterprise (port view panorama) by Chris Devers

See more photos of this, and the Wikipedia article.

Details, quoting from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum | Space Shuttle Enterprise:

Manufacturer:

Rockwell International Corporation

Country of Origin:

United States of America

Dimensions:

Overall: 57 ft. tall x 122 ft. long x 78 ft. wing span, 150,000 lb.

(1737.36 x 3718.57 x 2377.44cm, 68039.6kg)

Materials:

Aluminum airframe and body with some fiberglass features; payload bay doors are graphite epoxy composite; thermal tiles are simulated (polyurethane foam) except for test samples of actual tiles and thermal blankets.

The first Space Shuttle orbiter, "Enterprise," is a full-scale test vehicle used for flights in the atmosphere and tests on the ground; it is not equipped for spaceflight. Although the airframe and flight control elements are like those of the Shuttles flown in space, this vehicle has no propulsion system and only simulated thermal tiles because these features were not needed for atmospheric and ground tests. "Enterprise" was rolled out at Rockwell International's assembly facility in Palmdale, California, in 1976. In 1977, it entered service for a nine-month-long approach-and-landing test flight program. Thereafter it was used for vibration tests and fit checks at NASA centers, and it also appeared in the 1983 Paris Air Show and the 1984 World's Fair in New Orleans. In 1985, NASA transferred "Enterprise" to the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum.

Transferred from National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• • •

Quoting from Wikipedia | Space Shuttle Enterprise:

The Space Shuttle Enterprise (NASA Orbiter Vehicle Designation: OV-101) was the first Space Shuttle orbiter. It was built for NASA as part of the Space Shuttle program to perform test flights in the atmosphere. It was constructed without engines or a functional heat shield, and was therefore not capable of spaceflight.

Originally, Enterprise had been intended to be refitted for orbital flight, which would have made it the second space shuttle to fly after Columbia. However, during the construction of Columbia, details of the final design changed, particularly with regard to the weight of the fuselage and wings. Refitting Enterprise for spaceflight would have involved dismantling the orbiter and returning the sections to subcontractors across the country. As this was an expensive proposition, it was determined to be less costly to build Challenger around a body frame (STA-099) that had been created as a test article. Similarly, Enterprise was considered for refit to replace Challenger after the latter was destroyed, but Endeavour was built from structural spares instead.

Service

Construction began on the first orbiter on June 4, 1974. Designated OV-101, it was originally planned to be named Constitution and unveiled on Constitution Day, September 17, 1976. A write-in campaign by Trekkies to President Gerald Ford asked that the orbiter be named after the Starship Enterprise, featured on the television show Star Trek. Although Ford did not mention the campaign, the president—who during World War II had served on the aircraft carrier USS Monterey (CVL-26) that served with USS Enterprise (CV-6)—said that he was "partial to the name" and overrode NASA officials.

The design of OV-101 was not the same as that planned for OV-102, the first flight model; the tail was constructed differently, and it did not have the interfaces to mount OMS pods. A large number of subsystems—ranging from main engines to radar equipment—were not installed on this vehicle, but the capacity to add them in the future was retained. Instead of a thermal protection system, its surface was primarily fiberglass.

In mid-1976, the orbiter was used for ground vibration tests, allowing engineers to compare data from an actual flight vehicle with theoretical models.

On September 17, 1976, Enterprise was rolled out of Rockwell's plant at Palmdale, California. In recognition of its fictional namesake, Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and most of the principal cast of the original series of Star Trek were on hand at the dedication ceremony.

Approach and landing tests (ALT)

Main article: Approach and Landing Tests

On January 31, 1977, it was taken by road to Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, to begin operational testing.

While at NASA Dryden, Enterprise was used by NASA for a variety of ground and flight tests intended to validate aspects of the shuttle program. The initial nine-month testing period was referred to by the acronym ALT, for "Approach and Landing Test". These tests included a maiden "flight" on February 18, 1977 atop a Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) to measure structural loads and ground handling and braking characteristics of the mated system. Ground tests of all orbiter subsystems were carried out to verify functionality prior to atmospheric flight.

The mated Enterprise/SCA combination was then subjected to five test flights with Enterprise unmanned and unactivated. The purpose of these test flights was to measure the flight characteristics of the mated combination. These tests were followed with three test flights with Enterprise manned to test the shuttle flight control systems.

Enterprise underwent five free flights where the craft separated from the SCA and was landed under astronaut control. These tests verified the flight characteristics of the orbiter design and were carried out under several aerodynamic and weight configurations. On the fifth and final glider flight, pilot-induced oscillation problems were revealed, which had to be addressed before the first orbital launch occurred.

On August 12, 1977, the space shuttle Enterprise flew on its own for the first time.

Preparation for STS-1

Following the ALT program, Enterprise was ferried among several NASA facilities to configure the craft for vibration testing. In June 1979, it was mated with an external tank and solid rocket boosters (known as a boilerplate configuration) and tested in a launch configuration at Kennedy Space Center Launch Pad 39A.

Retirement

With the completion of critical testing, Enterprise was partially disassembled to allow certain components to be reused in other shuttles, then underwent an international tour visiting France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, and the U.S. states of California, Alabama, and Louisiana (during the 1984 Louisiana World Exposition). It was also used to fit-check the never-used shuttle launch pad at Vandenberg AFB, California. Finally, on November 18, 1985, Enterprise was ferried to Washington, D.C., where it became property of the Smithsonian Institution.

Post-Challenger

After the Challenger disaster, NASA considered using Enterprise as a replacement. However refitting the shuttle with all of the necessary equipment needed for it to be used in space was considered, but instead it was decided to use spares constructed at the same time as Discovery and Atlantis to build Endeavour.

Post-Columbia

In 2003, after the breakup of Columbia during re-entry, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board conducted tests at Southwest Research Institute, which used an air gun to shoot foam blocks of similar size, mass and speed to that which struck Columbia at a test structure which mechanically replicated the orbiter wing leading edge. They removed a fiberglass panel from Enterprise's wing to perform analysis of the material and attached it to the test structure, then shot a foam block at it. While the panel was not broken as a result of the test, the impact was enough to permanently deform a seal. As the reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panel on Columbia was 2.5 times weaker, this suggested that the RCC leading edge would have been shattered. Additional tests on the fiberglass were canceled in order not to risk damaging the test apparatus, and a panel from Discovery was tested to determine the effects of the foam on a similarly-aged RCC leading edge. On July 7, 2003, a foam impact test created a hole 41 cm by 42.5 cm (16.1 inches by 16.7 inches) in the protective RCC panel. The tests clearly demonstrated that a foam impact of the type Columbia sustained could seriously breach the protective RCC panels on the wing leading edge.

The board determined that the probable cause of the accident was that the foam impact caused a breach of a reinforced carbon-carbon panel along the leading edge of Columbia's left wing, allowing hot gases generated during re-entry to enter the wing and cause structural collapse. This caused Columbia to spin out of control, breaking up with the loss of the entire crew.

Museum exhibit

Enterprise was stored at the Smithsonian's hangar at Washington Dulles International Airport before it was restored and moved to the newly built Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles International Airport, where it has been the centerpiece of the space collection. On April 12, 2011, NASA announced that Space Shuttle Discovery, the most traveled orbiter in the fleet, will be added to the collection once the Shuttle fleet is retired. When that happens, Enterprise will be moved to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City, to a newly constructed hangar adjacent to the museum. In preparation for the anticipated relocation, engineers evaluated the vehicle in early 2010 and determined that it was safe to fly on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft once again.

1:72 Yakovlev Yak-138 (NATO ASCC Code 'Flitchbeam'); "17 Red" of the Soviet Air Force Frontal Aviation's 24th Air Army, 138th Fighter Aviation Division; Mirgorod AB (Ukraine), 1989 (Whif/Kitbashing) by Dizzyfugu

+++ DISCLAIMER +++

Nothing you see here is real, even though the conversion or the presented background story might be based historical facts. BEWARE!

Some background:

The Yakovlev Yak-38 (Russian: Яковлева Як-38; NATO reporting name: "Forger") was the Soviet Naval Aviation's first and only operational VTOL strike fighter aircraft, in addition to being its first operational carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft. It was developed specifically for and served almost exclusively on the Kiev-class aircraft carriers.

Some specimen of the initial variant were tested during the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan. These trials revealed several weaknesses of the construction in the form of unacceptable hot and high capabilities as well as a low payload. A further development for the Soviet Navy was therefore decided in August 1981, the abilities of which were fixed in October 1982. Already in November 1982 the first flight experiments of the prototype, leading to the Yak-38M, took place. In mid-1983 the manufacturing tests were completed and the production release was granted.

Anyway, the Soviet Air Force also had interest in a VTOL attack aircraft, which could provide CAS duties in immediate front line theatres, complementing the new Suchoj Su-25 Frogfoot and various attack helicopter types - but the Yak-38 was outright rejected. The Frontal Aviation demanded a much better performance, a dedicated avionics suite for ground attack duties and a higher payload of at least 2.500 kg (5.500 lb) in VTOL mode, plus an internal gun, and 3.000 kg (6.600 lb) when operating in C/STOL mode at sea level and from semi-prepared airstrips. For its primary ground attack role, the machine was also to be armored against projectiles of up to 0.5” around the lower hull and against 20mm rounds in the cockpit section. Finally, the machine had to be, compared with the Yak-38, simplified and be more rugged in order to ease frontline service and endure survivability.

OKB Yakovlev accepted the challenge and dusted off studies that had been undertaken during the Yak-38’s design stage. One of these was the Yak-38L (for 'lift/cruise'), a design built around a single, modified the AL-21F turbojet with vectoring nozzles and no lift engines, which were just dead weight in normal flight. This route seemed to be the most promising option for the Frontal Aviation's demands, even though it would mean a severe re-construction of the airframe.

The new aircraft, internally referred to as 'Izdeliye 138', was based on the Yak-38 airframe, but adapted and literally built around a lift/cruise variant of the large Kuznetsov NK-32 low bypass turbofan engine (originally, with an afterburner, powering the late Tu-144 airliners and the Tu-160 bomber). This engine’s initial derivative, NK-32L-1, adapted for operation with four vectoring nozzles, had a dry thrust of roundabout 110 kN (25,000 lbf) – about 10% more than the Yak-38’s engine trio all together. And the massive engine bore potential for at least 10% more power for the service aircraft.

The overall layout differed considerably from the long and sleek Yak-38: in order to create enough space for the large turbofan stage and its bigger, fixed-configuration air intakes, the fuselage had to be widened behind the cockpit section and the wings' main spar was moved upwards, so that the wings were now shoulder-mounted. The overall arrangement was reminiscent of the successful Hawker Harrier, but differed in some details like the landing gear, which was a classic tricycle design.

Cold air from the NK-32L’s initial turbofan stage was ducted into vectoring nozzles at the forward fuselage flanks, just in front of the aircraft's center of gravity, while the hot exhaust gasses passed through a bifurcated jet pipe through another pair of vectoring nozzles behind the CoG, in an arrangement which was also used in the Yak-38.
Slow speed control was ensured through puffer jet nozzles, fed by bleed air from the engine and placed on both wing tips as well as under the nose and in the aircraft’s tail section.

Teething troubles with the new engine, as well as the new, vectored nozzle arrangement, postponed the Izedeliye 138 prototype’s first flight until March 1986. Work was also slowed down because OKB Yakovlev had been working on the supersonic Yak-41 V/STOL fighter for the Soviet Navy, too. The Soviet Air Force's Frontal Aviation kept interested in the project, though, since they wanted a dedicated attack aircraft, and no complex multi-role fighter.

State acceptance trials lasted until mid 1987, and a total of four prototypes were built (including one for static ground tests). The Yak-138 was found to be easier to handle than the Yak-38, and the single engine made operations and also the handling during flight mode transition much easier and safer.
The prototypes were soon followed by a pre-production batch of 21 aircraft for field trials in frontline units. By then, the NK-32L had been much improved and now offered 137 kN (31,000 lbf) of thrust for short periods, which made it possible to meet all the Frontal Aviations requirements (esp. the call for 2.000 kg ordnance in VTOL mode).

Among its test pilots, the Yak-138 was quite popular and called "Balkon" ("Balcony") because of the good frontal view from the armored cockpit (offering a 17° downwards sight angle).

For frontline service, the aircraft was now equipped with sophisticated avionics, including a Sokol-138 navigation suite with a DISS-7 Doppler radar and a digital computer. A comprehensive ECM suite was installed for self-defence, including SPS-141 and SB-1 active jammers, KDS-23 chaff/flare dispensers built into the ventral pylon and an SPO-10 radar himing and warning system.

In accordance with the Yak-138‘s strike and low-level attack requirements, provisions were made to mount missiles and precision-guided munitions, as well as retaining a nuclear capability in line with other Soviet combat aircraft. An S-17VG-1 optical sight was fitted, as well as a laser rangefinder and marked-target seeker behind a flat, sloped window in the lower nose section.In the upper nose, between the aircraft's two characterisitic pitot booms, a Delta-2NG beam-riding missile guidance system antenna was placed in a small bullet fairing.

By 1989, the initial batch of aircraft had been delivered (receiving the NATO ASCC code 'Flitchbeam') and successfully tested. An order for 42 more aircraft had been placed and a dual training facility with the Soviet Navy at Kaspiysk AB in the Dagestan region (where Soviet Navy Yak-38U trainers were used for transitional training) established , when the disruption of the Soviet Union suddenly stopped the program in 1991 before the Yak-138 could enter production and service on a large scale.

Most of the machines in Frontal Aviation service fell to the Ukraine, where most of the machines had been based. This situation sealed the fate of the promising Yak-138 more or less over night: the now independent Ukraine did not want to keep the exotic type in its arsenal (together with some Yak-38s of the former Soviet Navy, too), and Russia did not want (and could simply not afford) to pay anything for the machines, which had been offered for an unknown sum.

Officially, all Ukrainian Yak-138 were scrapped until 1994, even though rumor has it that one or two airframes had been sold behind the scenes to China. In Russia only five specimen had survived, and since the spares situation was doubtful none could be kept in flying condition. One Yak-138 was eventually handed over to the Ulyanovsk Aircraft Museum, while the rest was either mothballed or scrapped, too. Unfortunately, the sole museum exhibit was lost in 1995 in a fire accident.

General characteristics:

Crew: One

Length (incl. pitot): 15.84 m (51 ft 10 1/2 in)

Wingspan: 8,17 m (26 ft 9 in)

Height: 4.19 m (14 ft 3 in)

Wing area: 24.18 m² (260.27 ft²)

Empty weight: 7,385 kg (16,281 lb)

Max. takeoff weight: 11,300 kg (28,700 lb)

Powerplant:

1x Kuznetsov NK-32L-2 turbofan engine, rated at 137 kN (31,000 lbf)

Performance:

Maximum speed: 1,176 km/h (730 mph; 635 knots) at sea level

Combat radius: 230 mi (200 nmi, 370 km) lo-lo-lo with 4,400 lb (2,000 kg) payload

Ferry range: 2,129 mi (1,850 nmi, 3,425 km)

Endurance: 1 hr 30 min (combat air patrol – 115 mi (185 km) from base)

Service ceiling: 51,200 ft (15,600 m)

Time to climb to 40,000 ft (12,200 m): 2 min 23 s

Armament:

1x GSh-23L 23mm machine cannon with 250 RPG under the fuselage

5 hardpoints with a total external capacity of

- 3.000 kg (6,600 lb) for C/STOL operations and

- 2.000 kg (4.400 lb) in VTOL mode

Provisions to carry combinations of various types of unguided rockets (up to 240 mm), anti-ship

or air-to-surface Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) missiles (together with a Delta N guidance pod), R-60,

R-60M (AA-8 Aphid) or R-73 (AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles; tactical nuclear bombs, general

purpose bombs of up to 500 kg (1.100 lb) caliber, or incendiary ZB-500 napalm tanks or up to

three PTB-800 drop tanks under the fuselage and the inner pair of wing pylons

The kit and its assembly:

Sixth contribution to the “Soviet” Group Build at whatifmodelers.com in early 2017, on pretty short notice since the GB had been coming to its end. This totally fictional aircraft was inspired CG illustrations that had been roaming the WWW for some time: a hybrid between a Yak-38 (mostly the tail section), mated with an AV-8B Harrier II (cockpit, wings, landing gear). This did not look bad at all, yet a bit weird, with lift engines added in front of the fin. Certainly not conformal with a good CG balance – but I liked the idea of a single-engine Forger. And actually, OKB Yakovlev had been considering this.

So, the basic idea was a Harrier/Yak-38 kitbash. But the more I thought about the concept, the more additional donor parts came into play. One major addition was the nose section from a MiG-27 – with its slanted nose it would offer the pilot an excellent field of view, and the aircraft would, as a front line attack plane like the Harrier, not carry a radar, so the Flogger’s nose shape was perfect.

Therefore, initial ingredients for the Yak-138 were:

- Rear fuselage, wings and tail from a Tsukuda Hobby/Kangnam/Revell Yak-38

- Mid-fuselage with air intakes and front vectoring nozzles from a Matchbox Sea Harrier

- Cockpit from an Academy MiG-27

Work started with the MiG-27 cockpit, which was more or less taken OOB (except for side consoles in the cockpit and different seat), and the Yak-38 the tail section, built in parallel. To my surprise the Forger fuselage was easier to combine with the Harrier than expected, even though the position of the right cuts took multiple measurements until I came up with a proper solution. Since the Harrier is overall shorter than the Yak-38, the latter’s fuselage had to be shortened. I retained the tail cone, the Forger’s vectoring nozzles and the landing gear wells – and a 2cm plug was taken out between them. Instead of the Harrier’s tandem landing gear arrangement with outriggers under the outer wings, this one was to receive a conventional landing gear for optional C/STOL operations with a higher ordnance load, so that the Yak-38 parts were a welcome basis. Once the fuselage’s underside was more or less complete, the upper rest of the Yak-38 fuselage could be cut to size and integrated into the lower half and the Harrier parts.

After the rear end was settled, the MiG-27 cockpit could be mounted to the front end, which was slightly shortened by 2-3mm (since the Flogger’s is markedly longer than the short Harrier nose). In order to change the overall look of the aircraft, I eventually dropped the Harrier intakes and decided to use the Flogger’s boxy air intakes instead. These are considerably smaller than the gaping Harrier holes, and blending the conflicting shapes into each other for a more or less consistent look took several PSR turns. But it worked, better than expected, and it changes the aircraft’s look effectively, so that almost anything Harrier-esque was gone.

Once the fuselage was completed, I realized that I could not use the Yak-38 wings anymore. They are already pretty small, but with the more voluminous Harrier and Flogger parts added to the aircraft, they’d just be too small!

What to do...? I checked the donor bank and – in order to add even more individual flavor – used a pair of double delta wings from a PM Model Su-15! But only the core of them was left after considerable modifications: The inner delta wing sections were cut off, as well as the tip sections and parts of the trailing edge (for a planform similar to the Yak-38’s wings). On the underside, the landing gear openings were filled up and wing tips from the Yak-38, with puffer jet nozzles, transplanted. The inner leading edges had to be re-sculpted, too. The Su-15 wing fences were kept - a welcome, very Soviet design detail.

A lot of work, but I think it paid out because of the individual shape and look of these “new” wings?

As a consequence of the new, bigger wings, the little Yak-38 stabilizers could not be used anymore, either. In order to keep the square wing shape, I used modified stabilizers from an Intech F-16C/D – their trailing edges were clipped, but the bigger span retained. Together with the characteristic OOB Yak-38 fin they work well, and all of the aerodynamic surfaces IMHO blend well into the overall design of the aircraft.

After the hull was complete, work on smaller things could start. Under the fuselage, a GSh-23-2 pod from a MiG-21 was added, as well as pylons from the Tsukuda Yak-38 under the wings and a donor part from the scrap box in ventral position.

The landing gear is a mix, too: the main struts come from the Yak-38, the balloon wheels from the Matchbox Harrier. The front landing gear comes from the Academy MiG-27, including the wheels with mudguards. It was just mounted in a fashion that it now retracts forward.

The Harrier vectoring nozzles were modified, too, the exhaust “grills” replaced by square, simple ducts, scratched from styrene profile and putty. Care was taken that the nozzles would remain moveable in the fuselage flanks – for later hover pictures. The Yak-38’s nozzles were retained, but since they can OOB only be mounted in a single, fixed position, I added a simple pin to each nozzle, together with two holes in the hull, so that positions can now be switched between hover and level flight.

All around the hull, finally some small details like pitots, blade antennae and air scoops were finally added, and the ordnance consists of a pair of unguided 57mm rocket pods and a pair of Kh-23 (AS-7 Kerry) guided missiles – the latter come from the Yak-38 kit, but they are very crude and their tail sections were modified in order to come (slightly) closer to reality.

Painting and markings:

As an aircraft of the Soviet Frontal Aviation in the late Eighties, I settled upon a typical, disruptive four-tone camouflage with blue undersides. Very conventional, but with an exotic VTOL model I thought that a subtle look would be appropriate – and also separate it from the Naval Yak-38 cousin.

Design benchmark is the scheme on a contemporary MiG-21bis from a Soviert Frontal Aviation unit, chosen because of the disruptive pattern. The tones are guesstimates, though, based on various similar aircraft in more or less weathered condition. I settled for:

- Humbrol 195 (Dark Satin Green)

- Humbrol 78 (RAF Interior Green)

- Modelmaster 2005 (Burnt Umber)

- Humbrol 119 (Light Earth)

- Humbrol 115 (Russian Blue) for the undersides

The cockpit was painted in Russian Cockpit Green, opf course. The landing gear and their respective wells in a mix of Aluminum and Khaki Drab (Humbrol 56 & 26), and the wheel discs became bright green (Humbrol 131). Several di-electric panels and antennae were painted in Humbrol 106 (RAF Ocean Grey).

The kit received a thin black ink wash, in order to emphasize the panel lines, and panel post-shading with subtly lighter tones of the basic colors. National markings, codes and emblems come from several aftermarket sheets, mostly from High Decal Line and Begemot.

After some soot stains (grinded graphite) had been added, the kit was sealed with matt acrlyic varnish (Italeri) and the ordnace added.

Messy work, but I am surprised how consistent and normal the resulting aircraft appears? From certain angles, my Yak-138 creation reminds a good deal of the stillborn Hawker P.1154 (no similarity intended, though), the SEPECAT Jaguar or rather exotic Soko J-22 Orao/IAR-93 Vultur fighter bomber. IMHO, there’s also some A-4 Skyhawk style to it, esp. in planview? Anyway, there’s still some good Yak-38 heritage recognizable, and the tactical Frontal Aviation paint scheme suits the aircraft well - looks like a serious mud mover.

Vice President Visits Marshall Space Flight Center (NHQ201709250021) by NASA HQ PHOTO

1

Vice President Mike Pence, second from right, meets Marshall Space Flight Center International Space Station Payload Operations Director Steven Dyer, left, as Marshall Space Flight Center International Space Station Payload Operations Director Stephanie Dudley, and Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., right, look on, Monday, Sept. 25, 2017 in Huntsville, Alabama. The Vice President visited the space center to view test hardware for NASA’s Space Launch System, America’s new deep space rocket and to call the crew onboard the International Space Station. Photo Credit: (NASA/Bill Ingalls)

KSC-99PP-1037_2 by SDASM Archives

2

A C-5 air cargo plane lands at Kennedy Space Center carrying the payload flight hardware for the Third Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission (SM-3A). The hardware will be taken to the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility for final testing and integration of payload elements. Mission STS-103 is a "call-up" mission which is being planned due to the need to replace portions of the Hubble's pointing system, the gyros, which have begun to fail. Although Hubble is operating normally and conducting its scientific observations, only three of its six gyroscopes are working properly. The gyroscopes allow the telescope to point at stars, galaxies and planets. The STS-103 crew will not only replace gyroscopes, it will also replace a Fine Guidance Sensor and an older computer with a new enhanced model, an older data tape recorder with a solid state digital recorder, a failed spare transmitter with a new one, and degraded insulation on the telescope with new thermal insulation. The crew will also install a Battery Voltage/Temperature Improvement Kit to protect the spacecraft batteries from overcharging and overheating when the telescope goes into a safe mode. Launch of STS-93 is currently targeted for Oct. 14 but under review, pending the launch date of a prior mission, STS-99, also under review. Image from NASA, originally appeared on this site: science.ksc.nasa.gov/gallery/photos/ Reposted by San Diego Air and Space Museum